Where Defeat Is Not An Option

As Matt noted on Facebook, the two worst people in America are Harry Reid and Barack Obama…bringing on crisis after crisis because, quite simply, they can’t have regular order in Congress as that would result in the whole Obama-Reid project going down in flames…remember, even Democrats don’t want this nonsense (or, at least, enough of them who are under threat in 2014 don’t want this).

But as we’re all going to die due to lack of government as of October 1st, let us just relax and enjoy our last few moments…and discuss whatever comes to mind.

UPDATE: Have you ever been to the WWII Memorial in DC? I have. So has Matt. Its a beautiful, moving monument to the men and women who sacrificed so much to win the Second World War. Its an open park. There is no “gate”; no entrance, as it were. It is just there and you are free to wander through it as you will. But for some reason the Park Service put up barricades to prevent entry this morning. Why? I can only surmise to make us all feel bad – in other words, on orders from on high, they decided to be rat bastards and prevent people from visiting the memorial in order to punish us and so get us to blame the bad, old Republicans for Obama and Reid shutting down the government. Well, the veterans of WWII are equal to any task – and so they just broke down the barricades and went on in, anyway.

UPDATE II: From what I’ve read, what I thought would be a day or two shutdown until the House GOP caved looks like it might go on for a couple weeks. Don’t get me wrong, there’s still an urge to surrender in the GOP House…but also a dawning realization that surrender won’t help the country or the party. True, there is a risk of a national backlash against us – but I believe such a risk is small. Most of the people who are going to really hate us over this already hate us – but, meanwhile, as long as we fight those who love us, will love us even more. Eventually there will be a resolution of some sort – but I’m willing to go for weeks on this and see what we can get. I bet if we hold firm we do get at least a year’s delay on the individual mandate and some other reforms. And a year’s delay on that sets up a situation where we might even get another year’s delay…and so on. Stand firm, GOP.

UPDATE III: Ed Morrisey over at Hot Air notes a new CBS poll taken after the shutdown started – it is rather unsurprising. Overwhelming majority disapproves of the shutdown and more people blame the GOP than blame Obama…but the kicker on that is that during the 1995 shutdown the blame GOP/blame President breakdown was 2 to 1 in favor of the President…now its 44% blaming GOP, 35% blaming Obama, and the poll was taken before the debacle of the WWII memorial and Reid’s comments about kids with cancer made the news in a big way. Compromise is demanded by overwhelming majorities, and so the Obama/Reid plan to automatically reject everything unless they get 100% of what they want will probably work over time to increasing disadvantage to the President and his Democrats – they are going to have to give ground (so will the GOP, but as we’re already willing to do that, its less of a sacrifice for us).

Remember, this is not 1995 – the MSM does not control things as well as they used to. The New Media is out there. The longer this goes on, the worse this gets for Democrats. And, of course, the Democrats know that – which is why we’re getting so much advice that its in our interest to end this as swiftly as possible by a complete surrender. Democrats wanted the shut down because they figured it worked best for them, and so we got it – Democrats now want this ended quickly with our surrender, because they figure that works best for them. Don’t fall for the lies. Stand firm!

…In fact, government by “continuing resolution” is a sleazy racket: The legislative branch is supposed to legislate. Instead, they’re presented with a yea-or-nay vote on a single all-or-nothing multi-trillion-dollar band-aid stitched together behind closed doors to hold the federal leviathan together while it belches its way through to the next budget cycle. As Professor Angelo Codevilla of Boston University put it, “This turns democracy into a choice between tyranny and anarchy.” It’s certainly a perversion of responsible government: Congress has less say over specific federal expenditures than the citizens of my New Hampshire backwater do at Town Meeting over the budget for a new fence at the town dump. Pace Senator Reid, Republican proposals to allocate spending through targeted, mere multi-billion-dollar appropriations are not only not “irresponsible” but, in fact, a vast improvement over the “continuing resolution”: To modify Lord Acton, power corrupts, but continuing power corrupts continually…

A continuing resolution is essentially a blank check to the Executive to just keep doing whatever it wishes – each department is supposed to have its own appropriation so that Congress can review what the money is going to be spent on, and make changes as appears necessary. Just continuing things is an abdication of Congressional authority – and a nullification of the Constitution in a lot of ways. The plain fact of the matter is that the government should be shut down right now – and should stay shut down until the House and Senate agree on a series of funding bills to send to the President…and this will take negotiations between the House and Senate, and therein lies the real reason Reid and Obama don’t want it: such negotiations would force cuts in various Democrat proposals which are unpopular with the public, but popular with the cronies of the Democrats.

UPDATE V: Obama kicks out a 77 and 80 year old couple who have owned their house on Lake Mead for decades. Because it sits on federal land, Obama says “get out”, and, of course, we’re all supposed to blame the Republicans because of this. I don’t know if you’ve ever been to Lake Mead but its mostly just empty land with a big lake in the middle of it. It has a gate, of course, and they charge you $10 a car load (which means during this splendid fall weather the government is denying itself a large amount of money in entrance fees) to get in…people do live in private homes in various parts of the Lake Mead area, and there is no risk at all in them being in their homes. But Obama and Reid just want to be creeps, and so this happens.

Like this:

Related

103 thoughts on “Government Shut Down We’re All Gonna DIE!!!1!!Eleventy!!1! Open Thread”

Retired SpookOctober 1, 2013 / 8:28 am

This administration and this president couldn’t tell the truth if their lives depended on it. I saw a clip of Obama the other day saying that he had succeeded in reducing the deficit by half, and that the deficit was declining faster than at any time in the last 60 years. I almost sprained my larynx laughing. But this is the type of misinformation we’ve come to expect from this crew.

So, let’s review what’s happened with the deficit. George Bush’s last budget, which he submitted to Congress in the spring of 2008 (for FY2009) projected a deficit of around $466 billion. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi did not pass that budget, instead finishing out Bush’s term with a CR, knowing that, as soon as BHOzo was inaugurated, he was going to go on a spending binge. Sure enough, Obama, Reid and Pelosi pushed through a massive omnibus spending bill and added over $900 billion in stimulus spending in the first quarter of 2009, and then claimed that they had inherited a $1.4 trillion deficit from Bush. The last published figure I saw for the current deficit was a little over $600 billion in August, which would extrapolate out to around $725 billion by this last week when FY2013 ended. So, technically, Obama and his pals aren’t lying when they say they’ve cut the deficit in half — they’re just not telling the whole truth (I know, I’m shocked too). And the big question is, what caused the deficit to drop from over $1 trillion last year to 3/4 of a trillion this year? I would submit that it was the sequester, which, of course, Obama and the Democrats were all for — oh wait — they weren’t?

I don’t understand…. Why won’t congress pass a real budget, you know, like they are required by law to do? Why don’t the Republicans use that as the reason for not approving a continuing resolution, ever? Certainly obeying the law and insisting that it’s job they were sent to Washington to do should be decent cover and put the responsibility for keeping the Government running squarely on the backs of the Democrats. Wouldn’t the Dems have to come to the table and negotiate all things fiscal including Obama Care then? The tack they are using now smacks of 95 and that didn’t bode so well for conservatives. Seems like a risk we don’t need to take to re-fight a fight we’ve already lost. Regardless of how bad the bill is -can’t blame conservatives for that, the Dems wouldn’t even let the Republicans in the room, while they forced this pig down our collective throats in the middle of the night – it is the Democrats bill. Hang Obama Care around their necks until they’re dead.

M. NoonanOctober 1, 2013 / 1:19 pm

Mark,

I’m of the opinion that the ’95 shut down had no ill-effects on the GOP…Democrats point to Clinton’s ’96 win as “proof” the shutdown helped them but, let’s face it, with Bob Dole as our nominee and Clinton riding an economic boom (mostly resulting from GOP reforms Clinton resisted, no less), it was pretty much baked-in that Clinton would win a second term. Meanwhile, the GOP won Congress in ’96, ’98, ’00, ’02 and ’04 and also picked up the White House in ’00 – if that is the result of being destroyed by a shutdown, then I’ll take it any day of the week. Additionally, the New Media exists now and it didn’t really exist back then…we have a much better opportunity of getting our view out to the public than the GOP did back in 1995. The main thing about this fight, however, is the GOP base – people like me who are spoiling for a fight and don’t want to back down. If the GOP had merely rolled over and sent a “clean” CR then the results in 2014 would have been disastrous as the GOP base stayed home or went third party. Now we’re in the fight and geared up for battle.

I am all for fighting, but I think we should pick fights that we can, in the end, win. Fighting for fighting’s sakes doesn’t help us much. Doesn’t closing the purse, because the Democrats won’t put forward a budget required by law, who instead choose to ride continuing resolutions which provides more tax dollar annually than might otherwise be available with a negotiated budget make more sense, than standing against a bill by closing down the government (which I agree is probably good for the country as a whole) that’s already passed and is the law? We wouldn’t be seeing comments like E. Norma Stitz’s (I assume this is in reference to the Republicans) and we would avoid being depicted as spoiled, just wanting our way, after we lost. I don’t think that’s very attractive and it provides cover for the Dems abuses over the past four plus years. We need to get back into the conversation. We control the house, but find ourselves frozen out of far too many conversations resulting from the lack of budget negotiations as a motivator for compromise. So, I ask, what’s wrong with my thinking.

M. NoonanOctober 2, 2013 / 12:54 am

Mark,

I believe that we do need to fight for the sake of fighting – its how you build support. Sounding the bugle for “charge” is what brings out the supporters…you lose them when you surrender today with a promise that you’ll fight tomorrow. We’ve been doing that for 5 years.

This is the future of our nation at stake – we win it all, or lose it all. And if we are to go down and our nation be wrecked because the people have bought the socialist claptrap, then I at least want the history books to record that the Americans went down fighting to the last.

dbschmidtOctober 1, 2013 / 7:04 pm

Mark M.,

I am not saying your thinking is wrong but part of your response was “…than standing against a bill by closing down the government … that’s already passed and is the law? We wouldn’t be seeing comments like [another poster]…and we would avoid being depicted as spoiled, just wanting our way, after we lost.” is where I, like a great portion of the American public, disagree with you. The Senate has not brought up a single Republican bill in the previous 5 years if it was not forced—I am sure that would change with a clean CR.

Let us look at “that’s already passed and is the law?” but you failed to mention that this “law” has already been altered 7 times not including carve outs and subsidies for special interest groups including Congress and their staffs. This is no different than passing a law stating the national (including all State and local) speed limit is now 35 mph. Well, it is 35 for the general population but if your car is a certain make or model, or worth x number of dollars—you can speed along at any speed you deem okay. Sounds really fair—doesn’t it? If I had my way I would decouple all insurance from business including all Federal, State and local government plans and create a real free market. Allow the insurance companies to cross State lines. Go back to what worked—I could get a single person policy that covered what I required (2 doctor visits per year) and a high-deductible catastrophic rider for a reasonable price.

As for the comments by another poster—it is the level of discourse one expects from the poorly educated, child-like mentality of the Liberal left. First and foremost, the Republicans including a few principled Libertarian / Constitutional minded folks not only won reelection but gained in the House whose job is to hold the country’s purse strings. They were elected on the platform to contain this piece of crappy legislation and are, at this point, doing their jobs. This poster you speak of has no concept of how government is supposed to work or they would have not put the word “legislative” into their whiny response; nevertheless, it does smack a great deal of Senator Harry Reid’s and President Obama’s responses—at least at the same child-like level of petulance.

We could always drag out the “way-back machine” and follow through the original creation to date of this disaster of a law to show all of the [start.sarcasm] transparency, committees that Republicans and others were invited to, lack of backroom (Cornhusker) kickbacks and strong-arming. All of the options that Reid never let onto the floor of the Senate (if it was Republican) for a vote including the provisions that people liked about the Act. Finally, we must not leave out the overwhelming bi-partisan vote on the final bill in the middle of the night that we would have to read to know what was in it but not given the time to read. [end.sarcasm] Regulations stemming from it are outrageous being written still to date by the unelected not to mention the new taxes.

Why yes, I can see how this can be nothing but good for the American people. Okay, really end of sarcasm.

BTW, if they are “non-essential” then why do we need them on the payroll?

Dbschmidt commented:
““The ACA is the law…” as our petulant man-child of a President likes to repeat over and over again. Nevertheless, like many other “laws” (including the requirement for a budget) since his inauguration are only partially or not enforced at all which is against the law. Our “Constitutional” scholar in charge has violated just about every one of the amendments to suit his “transformation of America.””

EXACTLY! We use this as justification for shutting down the government not delaying the ACA’s implementation for year. It’s stronger and more concise to argue Congress has a duty to uphold the law not act as though it is above it through omission than Ocare stinks, isn’t fair and others are being favored, so the park’s closed Mr. and Ms. America. I want to win the next election, but it won’t be decided by people as well informed as you. Sound bites and impressions count and the national attention spans the breadth of tweet, so brevity is indispensable. If you can’t explain your position in the span of tweet you won’t reach enough low information voters. Simple (some might say childish) messaging works in elections, because it can concisely relay an impression to many uninformed voters out there. I agree with you, your right, but you can’t ‘splain it fast enough Ricky, so you lose.

At this point Mark, you’re right. We have to fight. We’ve been commtted. Do you think the weak knee RINOs and the old guard will find the guts to stand and be counted? Backing down at this point, which I never avodvocated, is no longer an option. I just thought we could put forward a better aurgument to ganer support especially from the low info voter by putting forward a position harder for the opposition to spin. Let lose the dogs of WAR!

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 12:14 pm

Mark,

I think the RINOs are starting to realize that surrendering is worse than fighting on – they would have preferred to surrender before the battle was even joined, of course, but now they are Brave Fighters out of necessity. This could, of course, still go against us…but as I said, I’d rather be beaten in a fight than beaten in a surrender.

dbschmidtOctober 1, 2013 / 1:56 pm

“The ACA is the law…” as our petulant man-child of a President likes to repeat over and over again. Nevertheless, like many other “laws” (including the requirement for a budget) since his inauguration are only partially or not enforced at all which is against the law. Our “Constitutional” scholar in charge has violated just about every one of the amendments to suit his “transformation of America.”

The full faith and credit of the US is not at risk but that is just another little white lie from the President and his minions. Not now—not ever. The House is asking for nothing more than a reprieve for the average American taxpayer from the ACA just like large and small businesses, the unions, and Congress has been given—or are their two sets of laws now? Laws for the ruling elites and those with lobbyists and another set for the rest of the American taxpayers. The second rider is one that would treat all Federal employees from the President, Congress on down just like they want to treat the rest of us.

The President, Senate Majority Leader Reid and others are constantly repeating that there will be “no compromise”, “anything but a clean CR” will be dead on arrival or vetoed–so who are the real obstructionists? Remember, this is not a repeal or defunding—just making everyone equal (isn’t that what Liberals squeal about constantly), and the option to opt out. Also, do not forget this is only health insurance and not health care. Here in NC, the exchanges (if running at all) will offer two insurance companies that I would not normally choose to do business with and several really crappy plans each with extremely high deductibles. When in full force, the ACA will also make it illegal for me to pay my doctor with cash thereby, once again, limiting my options.

This is the time to even the playing field level but subjecting all of our elected officials to the same standards as they inflict on the rest of the population to include no pensions (401K with matching up to 6%), and ACA / Medicare / Medicaid in lieu of their current plans as a start. Wonder if Bethesda takes ACA plans or Medicare for that matter?

This shutdown as it is with funding for the military would have little or no effect on the majority of Americans if we just followed the Constitution as intended and implemented a few common sense laws.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Retired SpookOctober 1, 2013 / 4:38 pm

My wife and I visited the WWII memorial 3 years ago. Magnificent doesn’t begin to describe it. Good to see the honor flight guys knock down the barricades. This shut-down could provide an excellent opportunity for some massive acts of civil disobedience across the country — at national parks and monuments for example.

Too bad your ( E. Norma Stitz ) responses are nothing more than a poor attempt at blowing snot bubbles. Try to make a coherent argument someday. This is the reason I do not deal with Trolls.
—–
Sent from my non-subsidized iPad.
Via my non-subsidized iPhone.
No OPM was used or injured in the creation of this message.

M. NoonanOctober 2, 2013 / 1:24 am

Spook,

If my dad were still alive, he’s be pestering me to get him on a flight out to DC just so he could disobey…and he’d be hoping to have a heart attack while being arrested.

Here’s the real kicker – they had to spend extra money on a non-essential activity while the non-essential activities were stopped due to lack of appropriation. I do wonder if we can kick up criminal charge on this – money was drawn out of the Treasury without Congressional authorization in order to set up those barricades, and that is against the law.

You’ll want to be careful with that line of reasoning. The democrats will control the house again some day and you’d be rightfully upset if they refused to fund laws that passed through all three branches of government.

Retired SpookOctober 2, 2013 / 12:47 pm

you’d be rightfully upset if they refused to fund laws that passed through all three branches of government.

Dolf,

If the Donkeys win back the House they will control both the Executive and Legislative branches, and the GOP will be irrelevant.

I am talking about a time when there is a GOP president and a Democratic House.

BTW, I find myself in agreement with Amazona and Count on this shutdown as well as your famous rule of holes. I think the GOP lost the election, lost the supreme court decision and is only burying itself with this shutdown.

I don’t think the world is going to end of course, and all the disaster scenarios of kids with cancer not getting treatment is just a circus, but I really think this is only harming the GOP.

M. NoonanOctober 2, 2013 / 1:10 pm

Yeah, surrendering is always be best path to victory…we can’t fight over ObamaCare, ’cause that’s a loser; we can’t fight over the debt limit, ’cause that’s a loser; we can’t fight over Benghazi, ’cause that’s a loser; we can’t fight over the IRS, ’cause that’s a loser…we’re told again and again by Democrats, MSMers and RINOs that we can’t fight on any of these issues. What, pray tell, is the issue we are to fight over? Mohair subsidies?

It isn’t about surrendering. It’s about avoiding Gallipoli. It’s about having a GOP that survives.

The GOP did almost nothing for decades as health care costs skyrocketed.
Basic facts: Health care is inelastic. You’ll pay just about anything to live another day. The number of MD’s is fixed by the AMA. Med school is expensive and MD’s want to recoup their costs ASAP. Employee based health coverage was a workaround during WW2 to pay better employees on the side because of government regulation limiting pay.

And the GOP did what? It went after tort reform which did nothing significant.

Okay. The health care battle is lost. But there is still the education battle to fight. What is/will the GOP doing to control the skyrocketing costs of university? Winning issue.

What will the GOP do to lower barriers to entry in industry? Where is the make/mine/build candidate for office? Winning issue.

Where is the GOP anti-war candidate? That would be a winning issue.

M. NoonanOctober 2, 2013 / 1:50 pm

We fight those battles, too – but here’s the battle of the moment. Fight it. I see what you’re saying, but you’re wrong – your proposal is essentially to grant Obama and Reid complete victory and then go on to other issues. That can’t be done – if you surrender on this, then you lose the base of the GOP: it will go third party. We elected the House to stop ObamaCare – and if we won’t even fight it out on the issue, then having a GOP House is worse than useless.

Your proposal is to pretend Obama hasn’t already won on Obamacare. IMO he won when the Supreme Court declared it constitutional and he got reelected.

There are numerous districts that elected conservative house members which also went for Obama. It doesn’t make sense to say the purpose of electing a GOP house is to stop Obamacare for those that voted for Obama and a conservative house member.

AmazonaOctober 2, 2013 / 8:55 pm

Except the Court did not declare the entire Act constitutional. They were limited to the specific area they were asked to address, which was the constitutionality of forcing people to enter into contracts by fining them if they did not. The ruling was limited to this one question and it was that the penalty was constitutional if it was defined as a “tax” rather than as a “fine”.

You are an excellent example of why and how the Left is so successful in its campaign of semantic infiltration. They say something over and over and then it becomes, to many people, a fact.

The case was argued in a belt-and-suspenders kind of format, with the government lawyers arguing that the penalty was not a tax, except it was a tax. Justice Roberts then got to pick which of these arguments he wanted to use to support his ruling, and he chose the version in which people are not FINED for failing to buy insurance, they are TAXED for failing to buy insurance.

This has nothing to do with the other aspects of the Act. This was the part of the Act chosen as the opening salvo of constitutional challenges, because it was so clear the penalty was a fine, and this is why it was such a shock to first see it argued in such a bizarre “it’s kinda this or kinda that but not really either one till you decide which one you want it to be” manner and then to see this tactic work.

As for his reelection, I don’t think even the Left tried to pretend it was based on approval of Obamacare. And most who won election or reelection to the House ran on an anti-Obamacare platform. No one is quite sure just why people who found the nation in worse shape under Obama still opted to put him back in, but the answers are a dog’s dinner of lunacies, ranging from bigotry against Mormons to bigotry for blacks to some bizarre conviction that the Right was engaging in a “war on women” and so on. It was not our nation’s proudest moment.

Let’s say the Supreme Court found nothing about Obamacare that was unconstitutional.

I don’t need a crystal ball to say that once people get used to the government providing health care they will come to rely on it just as most of B4V counts on their monthly SS (justly earned) and egregious Medicare D availability (welfare brought to you by Bush to get your vote, doesn’t matter if you claim you won’t use it, it’s there when you change your mind).

The health care battle is lost. The question is if pro-life conservatives like Mark are willing to fight after the battle is over. It is so important because the GOP risks being beaten for a decade or more and that will have repercussions everywhere. I want to mention that never has the GOP defended the unborn with the vehemence they are defending insurance companies. The government shutdown is pushing even conservative people in the military to have doubts about who the GOP really cares about. If the GOP loses big, the pro-death democrats will have opportunities galore to push their agendas in all other areas of policy.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 10:58 am

You might as well go ahead and say it. Actually, you already have. But, as you seem intent on making an argument from within your Fantasy Bubble, let’s go ahead and say that at some future date the Supreme Court has discovered an emanation of a penumbra of an unstated duty of the federal government to intrude into the private marketplace and force people to depend on the government for health care. (Later we can address your odd belief that “most” of the posters here are dependent on Uncle Sam.)

So, given your imagined future, the nation is now completely subject to the various edicts, rules,whims and mandates of this massive assumption of federal power. (What the Founders called “tyranny” and which it is to this day, no matter how the Left tries to redefine it.) We can even pretend that the purpose of the Act is to provide health care, and furthermore that it will be “affordable”. Then you make the huge leap to assuming that people will find the system preferable to what they had before. And you seem to be assuming that there will suddenly, miraculously, be some kind of transformation of federal bureaucracy that will make its administration even remotely functional. That’s a lot of speculation upon which to base an argument—though, to be honest, I’m not quite sure what your argument IS. Is it that the SCOTUS ruling covered all of Obamacare? Is it that people will jess LUVVV that there Obamacare once they get used to it? Is it that it will be an improvement over what we have now? Is it that having a poor law enacted by a Republican makes even worse laws by Dems more acceptable? Is it that Americans are so weak and spineless that they will meekly accept the unrestrained expansion of central government?

As for your last paragraph, yes, there are without a doubt some people who are so bone-deep stupid they will not be able to see through the Dem posturing that it is really those Big Meanie Righties who are insisting on their own way, in spite of the repeated offers from the Right to compromise, to fund essential federal programs, etc. and the repeated taunts of the Dems that it is their way or the highway. Yes, you yourself are proof that some people will ignore the facts, look right past what they hear the Left saying, and make their final decisions based on what the Left tells them they are supposed to believe. Yes, there are some so dense that they will look right past the Prez saying he has no obligation to compromise, and swallow the lie that it is the Right which refuses to compromise. After all, the election of 2012 showed us quite clearly just how stupid Americans can be.

I, however, think that the number of Americans willing to swallow the blatant lies of the Left is dwindling, as the facts start to fight their way through the fog of deceit laid down by the Complicit Agenda Media. And we don’t need to convince all of the brain-dead sheeple who believed, for example, that there was a War On Women, or that the most pressing problem facing this nation today is what Jim can call John after they shack up. There will always be a Contingent of the Ignorant, and they will always have their spokesmen. (Take a bow, dolf.)

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 11:05 am

You really are drinking the koolaid now – it is the Democrats who are defending the insurance industry which is set to make a bonanza because of ObamaCare…for crying out loud, who do you think wrote the darn law? Insurance companies and Congressional staffers! Staffers who may want to go work for the insurance companies at a later date, or work for companies which lobby for the insurance companies. You think that Obama, Pelosi or Reid even read so much as a paragraph of the before they rammed it through?

The health care battle is not over – it goes on and on and on until we win it.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 12:43 am

Hardly any – and probably as many on the other side (ie, voted for Romney but sent a Democrat to the House). Laws of men are not permanent – they are subject to change. Our whole existence as a nation is based upon the right of the people to alter or abolish their laws.

AmazonaOctober 2, 2013 / 9:07 pm

The “winning issue”should be, and I believe would be, a coherently stated commitment to the Constitutional model of a federal government restricted as to size, scope and power, with authority left to the states or to the people.

The health care battle is NOT lost. The bizarrely named Affordable Care Act. which is neither affordable nor about care, is not a done deal. It will collapse due to its own deficiencies and defects, the greatest of which is its unmanageability. The idea is to keep it from taking the whole country down with it.

We had a wonderful health care system which was not perfect and which did not meet every single need of every single person according to every single criterion. Instead of singling out the areas that needed work, the Left decided to destroy it to make room for a massive scam designed to increase the scope and power of the government and enrich the Ruling Elites, while suckering the stupid and the gullible into thinking it was going to make things better for them.

Well, when my car needs new tires I don’t junk it and buy a new one with fewer features, worse mileage, and that only comes in beige. I fix what needs to be fixed. But the nation has been, at least for a while, bamboozled by some snake oil salesmen, and it is now coming to its senses.

AmazonaOctober 2, 2013 / 9:25 pm

Got that crystal ball all polished up, have you? You must, or at least have some bitchin’ Tarot cards, to be able to discern from such a distance a position which I have not taken.

Unless you have realized the wisdom of just agreeing with me on everything, so assume you would agree with me on “this shutdown” should I ever offer an opinion. I have to admit, that would be a wise course of action, but that is precisely why I doubt you would be able to do it.

canadianobserver11October 3, 2013 / 7:20 am

bardolf2
October 2, 2013 at 1:04 pm
—————————————————————————-

Exactly. To the rest of the world it appears as if the GOP has lost its collective mind and is on the brink of political suicide. Their stubborn refusal to accept the simple fact that their fellow citizens will no longer be at the mercy of the big business insurance companies for their health coverage is hard to comprehend. We realize that the Party is not known for its compassionate policies and supports, unconditionally, free market enterprise but this is getting ridiculous. Trying to shift the blame for the shutdown to the President and the Democratic Party is doing nothing but making themselves look like a bunch of incompetent nitwits.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 11:09 am

CO,

Like Bardolf – who appears to have surrendered to the left entirely – you are under the delusion that the insurance companies are opposed to ObamaCare. THEY WROTE THE LAW. It is the insurance companies law. They wrote it to advantage themselves and to get taxpayer subsidies … and managed to get Uncle Sam to defray their risk by mandating that everyone, even young, healthy people who don’t really need it, get insurance. I try not to be rude, I really do – but you and all those on the other side on this are just plain and simple blind. You don’t see that you’ve been suckered – and here you go complaining about the GOP which is trying to save you from being conned! Unbelievable.

Well, Mark, if the insurance companies have indeed written this law, it goes to show you that even they can see the error of their ways and have written a law that will not, for instance, be denying coverage to folk with pre-existing conditions, drop policyholders if they become sick and are kindly allowing children and dependents to remain on their parents’ insurance plan until their 26th. birthday. I guess money-making enterprises can do the right thing after all.🙂

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 12:12 pm

CO,

A child is not 26 – that was just a way for the insurance companies to get well meaning parents to buy insurance for young adults who hardly ever need health insurance. Think about it – from 18 to 26, how many doctor visits did you make? Not that many. But now the insurance companies get people paying for something that 90% of the insured won’t need 90% of the time. What a great deal! Its like buying insurance for a car you keep in the garage and only drive once a year.

You really don’t see what kind of a scam this is…its just government and that makes you happy.

Retired SpookOctober 3, 2013 / 1:08 pm

No, Mark. I don’t think you understand — keeping your “kids” on your policy until age 26 is FREE. No one pays for that.//sarc. Seriously, what better way to get young people on the government dole just as they’re getting started in life.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 1:16 pm

And also increase insurance company profits by essentially forcing people to buy something they’ll likely never use! Crony capitalism at its best…but because its sold to them by a man with a (D) after his name, the suckers on the left fall for it.

canadianobserver11October 3, 2013 / 1:34 pm

M. Noonan Post author
October 3, 2013 at 12:12 pm

———————————————————————————————-

As much as you may hate to admit it , Mark, children do get sick and, unfortunately, have accidents that require medical assistance. If a child or young adult still living at home is diagnosed with cancer or any other life threatening illness, the financial burden on the family can be devastating if they do not have insurance. Our children are our greatest assets and it is our responsibility to see that they are taken care of. Making sure they have regular visits to a doctor is required for preventive purposes also. I don’t understand how you can square your belief that a fetus is sacred and must be protected but once that fetus becomes a walking talking member of society he/she is no longer significant.

Your statement that it is a government scam makes no sense when you tell me that this law was written by the insurance companies.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 1:39 pm

CO,

That is because you don’t understand that Big Government and Big Corporation are two sides of the same coin – they are in it together and against the rest of us. But here’s the thing – a 26 year old ISN’T A CHILD. For crying out loud, someone at 26 should be married, working, owning their own home, have a couple kids. My dad at 17 was a United States Marine being sent to fight on Saipan…he wasn’t a little boy who needed mommy, any more.

Our children might be our greatest asset, but someone in his 20’s isn’t “our children” anymore…he’s an adult and can darn well look after himself like an adult.

I would say, Mark, that the majority of 26 year olds are independent and hard working adults and a great boon to society. but sadly, and I’m sure you will agree, that with the terrible mess that the President has made of the economy and with the high unemployment rate for which he is entirely to blame, there are those young people who, through no fault of their own, are still living under their parents roof and do not have the means to purchase their own insurance. I wonder, too, what the percentage is of adults living with their parents who are just incapable of living on their own; those with Down Syndrome, for example, or those individuals with physical impairments that need ongoing medical care. I’m sure their parents are relieved that they will be covered under this law which, as you say, was written by the insurance companies.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 6:51 pm

” I wonder, too, what the percentage is of adults living with their parents who are just incapable of living on their own; those with Down Syndrome, for example, or those individuals with physical impairments that need ongoing medical care. I’m sure their parents are relieved that they will be covered under this law.”

Oh, I am sure those parents are relieved to know that their disabled offspring will be covered under this law. But who is paying for this coverage? What about when these disabled young adults reach the age of 26? Older? Should we make those parents even more relieved by stepping in and caring for them for the rest of their lives?

What you seem to think are compelling arguments only serve to prove, over and over, that you believe that people should have no responsibility for their own lives. And do you understand that this coverage is not free? That because it is mandated by law, people are deprived of the choice to opt out, and that insurance companies make money when people buy their products even if the purchase is not voluntary?

WTH, Random Placement Gnomes!
Laws passed by all “three branches of government” include such gems as Plessey v. Fergusson and Dred Scott. Thank G-d those generations didn’t have the attitude that Laws are Prescribed on High with infallibility.

For the record dolf, I don’t believe that the Republicans are destroying themselves or the Party with this move (shutdown) I challenge the end game. From all indications, Obama and the dimocrats will not survive unscathed. Three months from now no one will care about the shutdown, but where will we be in repealing Obamacare?

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 6:55 pm

“….through no fault of their own, are still living under their parents roof and do not have the means to purchase their own insurance.”

Yet most if not all of these people find it possible to go out at night with their friends, own cell phones, get manicures, buy video games, have computers, drive cars—-all choices made instead of buying insurance. And now your kind insists that they are OWED coverage paid for by other people.

You also imply that these people are unemployed, and living with their parents. You just make this crap up as you go, evidently in the belief that it is compelling support for your silliness.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 2:00 pm

1. Nobody “hates to admit” that children get sick. What a lying crock.
2. An American can drive at 16, vote at 18, serve in the military at 18, and is legally an adult at either 18 or 21, depending on the circumstances. Only in the scam to force people to pay for insurance for offspring up to the age of 26 is 25 considered to be a “child”.
3. “Our children are our greatest assets and it is our responsibility to see that they are taken care of.” But not the responsibility of the GOVERNMENT to see that they are taken care of. When a person becomes a parent, that person assumes responsibility for his or her offspring. If that includes buying insurance for an adult, that should be the decision of the parent, if the young adult is too irresponsible to take on personal responsibility. Only to the Left is the government supposed to be responsible for every aspect of life for every person. And, of course, if you are responsible for someone you also get to make decisions for that person—it’s a recipe for Leftist utopia.
4. “Making sure they have regular visits to a doctor is required for preventive purposes also.” So is regular tooth brushing and flossing. Who is supposed to be responsible for checking up on adults, many of whom already have children of their own, to make sure their dental hygiene is up to someone else’s standards?
Not to mention the silly claim that “…Making sure they have regular visits to a doctor is required for preventive purposes also….” Oh, bull. Millions and millions of people of all ages are quite healthy without “regular visits to a doctor” so this is hardly “required”.
5. ” I don’t understand how you can square your belief that a fetus is sacred and must be protected but once that fetus becomes a walking talking member of society he/she is no longer significant.”
What we believe is that human life is sacred, and must be protected. That is, not randomly butchered for the convenience of pathologically selfish females. BTW, this belief in the sanctity of human life does not end when a person “…becomes a walking talking member of society..” That is, murder is not allowed or condoned if a person is 6, or 16, or 60. All human beings are entitled to the same protections under the law, no matter their age. And as human beings they are all equally significant. However, as those human beings reach different levels of maturity, they are expected to assume different levels of personal responsibility. Diaper rash for an infant, dependent on the care of an adult, is the responsibility of the adult caregiver. Lack of personal hygiene in a 20-year-old can result in the same kind of rash, yet by that age no one else is supposed to make sure he knows how to wipe his ass. (Though I am sure you feel that there should be a government ass-wiping agency with designated authority and power to make sure all asses meet your standard of cleanliness.)

Your entire incoherent rant is based on the apparent belief that no one ever has any responsibility for himself, but that it is not only the responsibility of the government but the DUTY of the government to assume all types and levels of what used to be understood as personal responsibility.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 1:43 pm

Odd, isn’t it, how the bizarre way of reframing facts is such a hallmark of the Loony Left?

The thing is, he can’ t post anything without trumpeting his ignorance. And when he couples his ignorance with blind allegiance to the Left (not based on analysis of Leftist ideology but just knee-jerk reactions against the Other that is the Right) he really makes a fool of himself.

For example, here he lists a whole litany of things forced upon insurance companies by a massive, bloated, uber-powerful, rights-stripping Central Authority, and coos that it is all just spiffy and “kindly”. What he doesn’t get is that the only way any of this is possible is to have an enforcement agency backed by the full power and authority of the United States Government to FORCE people to pay the inflated premiums necessary to fund such “kindly” policies.

A powerful Central Authority that can force people to do what they don’t want to do is pretty much the definition of tyranny. CO loves it because what is being imposed on people happens to be something he believes is right. And it’s in another country so it won’t affect him. Like any good little Lefty footsoldier, he is all about telling other people to do what he thinks they should do, while not having to be affected by it himself.

And he just steadfastly looks the other way when this despotic intrusion into the lives and decisions of private citizens is not applied to the Ruling Elite, who, as usual in Leftist tyrannies, are not subject to the same diminishment of individual rights as the average guy on the street.

He is comfy in his little cocoon of government control in his country, so he now thinks we ought to be subject to the same restrictions of liberty and individuality here. How generous of him.

—————————————————————————————————–
According to Mark, it was the insurance companies who wrote this law, Amazona, not Central Authority…

” you are under the delusion that the insurance companies are opposed to ObamaCare. THEY WROTE THE LAW. It is the insurance companies law.” M. Noonan Post author
October 3, 2013 at 11:09 am.

What say you?

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 6:43 pm

I said what I said.

Mark said what he said.

I have never been under the impression that insurance companies wrote the law. Perhaps they did. But rather than engage in a smug, smirky, effort at a gotcha, why don’t you challenge my statement? That is, really challenge it, by proving that the massive, bloated, uber-powerful, rights-stripping Central Authority of the U.S. Government under Obama has NOT forced a whole litany of ‘benefits’ upon people and then plans to force them to pay for them.

canadianobserver11October 3, 2013 / 7:15 pm

“But rather than engage in a smug, smirky, effort at a gotcha, why don’t you challenge my statement?”…Amazona

Aw, come on now, you and I both know that that would be an exercise in futility. There’s no argument on this green earth that is going change your rigid opinion of socialize medicine.
We are never going to be on the same page, Amazona, as we are polar opposites. Somewhere along the line you lost the ability to emphasize with your fellow human beings and I find that to be a very sad thing indeed.

CO, what does not being on the same page have to do with challenging Amazona’s statement?

Can you? Or, were you called out for attempting to make a pathetic gotcha and are just plain clueless?

Pathetic and truly sad……

canadianobserver11October 3, 2013 / 9:03 pm

Tired;

The lady knows my position on the subject and I know hers. To get into a verbal fight with back and forth insults serves no meaningful purpose, whatsoever. That seems to be what we are witnessing in the political arena today and you can see just how productive that is turning out to be.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 11:43 pm

Socialized medicine is a quite acceptable experiment, if it is proposed in a nation which does not have a Constitution specifically formulated to protect against the development of an expansive and powerful central government. There is nothing wrong with it if it does not violate the basic law of the land, which is summed up in our 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

We fully understand that you feel justified in lecturing us on how we should run our country, and you have made it clear that you don’t bother to understand, much less respect, it or its rule of law. But you could at least make an effort to learn a little about it before opining.

And you might work on that tendency to just make sweeping statements about the beliefs of others when it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.

canadianobserver11October 4, 2013 / 7:15 am

Amazona
October 3, 2013 at 11:43 pm

———————————————————————————
You are correct about my ignorance of how your country is run, Amazona. I am totally baffled as to how the ACA became law if it were unconstitutional.

Retired SpookOctober 4, 2013 / 8:19 am

Canadian,

I don’t see why you should be baffled. it’s been explained by several people here on numerous occasions. It was written without any Republican input. Republicans were shut out of closed-door meetings where it was discussed. Final passage in the Senate was not supported by single Republican vote. (Wikipedia actually has a pretty comprehensive account of the ACA) As has already been pointed out to you numerous times, the Supreme Court did not rule the ACA constitutional. It only ruled that the individual mandate was not constitutional if it was a fine as the government attorneys had argued, but that it was constitutional if it was a tax, which the government attorneys and virtually everyone in the administration, including the President, vehemently denied that it was. I can’t find evidence of a single law that has ever been challenged all the way to the SC, where the court has allowed the government to argue a point and then allowed them to argue the opposite point. There are a number of challenges still working their way through the courts challenging other aspects of the law, and, at best, it will probably end up having to be extensively modified, depending on the outcome of those court challenges.

AmazonaOctober 4, 2013 / 11:20 am

” I am totally baffled as to how the ACA became law if it were unconstitutional.”

Congratulations. You are finally catching up. This is exactly the question we have, and this is the basis for objections to the Act.

While the Left likes to portray principled objections based on Constitutional law as really wanting children to die of cancer, etc., the underlying question is always there. And you finally figured it out.

dbschmidtOctober 4, 2013 / 11:35 am

The Constitutionality of the ACA has not been, and can not be tested until it effects a person on 01 Jan 2014. Aspects like the tax / fine can be. Starting on 01 Jan 14, the question of whether the government can force individuals to purchase a product will become a valid point–which by all but the most perverted application of law will be deemed unconstitutional.

neocon01October 5, 2013 / 9:53 am

the whole regime is built on a fraud and a lie…..why would anything they do surprise us?
he was cheated in by Illegals, innercity fraud, and the 1/2 color of his skin nothing else mattered to the peasant-plantation class who was promised shiny things and OPM…we are doomed unless we take our government back by force. Why do you think they are hell bound to disarm us while arming the muslim bro hood to the teeth world wide.

canadianobserver11October 5, 2013 / 10:48 am

“we are doomed unless we take our government back by force”… neocon01
October 5, 2013 at 9:53 am
——————————————————————————————–
Can we expect you to be leading the charge, neocon? If not leading it, then can we at least expect you to be in the ranks of the armed revolutionary militia storming the Capital? I presume you are serious and not just beating your chest, spouting nonsensical rhetoric.

Retired SpookOctober 5, 2013 / 11:04 am

CO, you seem to be more than willing to stick your nose in our affairs on a regular basis, so put yourself in our shoes now. If forceable resistance is not justified now, when, in your opinion, would it be justified? What do you think the President’s motivation is for having the NPS close down sites that have NO federal connection? What is his constitutional authority for doing so?

canadianobserver11October 5, 2013 / 11:27 am

Retired Spook
October 5, 2013 at 11:04 am
——————————————————————————

By all means, Spook, if you feel forcible resistance is called for at this time then please proceed. I’m sure neocon would appreciate having your armed & loaded presence by his side as you enter Washington, on your patriotic crusade to overthrow this anti-constitutional regime.

Retired SpookOctober 5, 2013 / 1:23 pm

As usual, you’re reading too much into my comment, CO. I’m merely suggesting that private sites that have been illegally and unconstitutionally closed by jack-booted federal thugs should have some recourse, particularly if the closures mean the loss of thousands of dollars of revenue. Should the Feds be allowed to get away with such an, I don’t know — abuse of power seems too mild a description? If they get away with this, what next — closing private businesses that happen to be along federal highways? Do you see the slippery slope here?

I don’t know where you live in Canada, but let’s say for the sake of discussion that you live in Ontario and park service agents from Alberta come and blockade your driveway so you can’t enter or leave because of some funding controversy that’s happening in Alberta. What are your options? And yes, I realize your constitution doesn’t allow for armed resistance against tyranny. Ours does.

AmazonaOctober 5, 2013 / 2:24 pm

Spook, I notice that the simpering allegedly Canadian non-observer, has chosen to define “by force” as nothing else but armed rebellion. This plays into the Left’s definition of constitution defenders as “extremists”, “domestic terrorists”, “anarchists” and other such lying nonsense.

Yet I took it to mean by forceful action, which encompasses all sorts of non-violent yet emphatic reaction to tyranny. The Boston Tea Party was forceful yet not violent. The Civil Rights movement of the 60s as a forceful reaction to the tyranny of racism. I see every union strike as a show of force in pursuit of a goal. Most recently, the entry of WW II vets to a closed memorial was a show of force.

CO and his kind always bring up the same question—it his statement an illustration of stupidity or an example of demagoguery based on lies?

The thing is, with CO the end result is the same—the statements, were they on newsprint, would serve only to line the bottom of a bird cage. Whether they represent stupidity or just dishonesty, they are nothing more reminders of what we can expect from the Left.

AmazonaOctober 5, 2013 / 2:38 pm

Here is an illustration on how we got saddled with Obama for yet a second term. These Lo-Fo morons, like CO, never let ignorance deter them from expressing opinions.

02casperOctober 5, 2013 / 8:35 pm

“Amazona October 5, 2013 at 2:38 pm

Here is an illustration on how we got saddled with Obama for yet a second term. These Lo-Fo morons, like CO, never let ignorance deter them from expressing opinions.”

Considering their answers, I would guess most of them watch FOX. It does explain how Republicans kept the house though.

AmazonaOctober 6, 2013 / 10:09 am

casper, you make less sense every time you post. What an utterly idiotic statement. It’s like you get these brain farts and think they are so cute you have to share them.

Or do you agree that Obamacare is not the same as the Affordable Care Act? I would not be surprised, given your overall level of ignorance.

Retired SpookOctober 5, 2013 / 2:43 pm

Amazona,

I see anything besides bending over, grabbing your ankles and telling the NPS thugs to sock it to ya as forceful resistance. Suing the daylights out of the NPS would be forceful resistance. I would think, even though they don’t have authority over federal agents, that there are quite a few County Sheriffs out there who aren’t afraid of a confrontation. If innocent people continue to allow the federal government to run rough-shod over them, it will only embolden the feds to do something worse. Eventually it will end up in armed conflict, as that will be the only option left. And, deep down, I think there are those within the administration, possibly up to and including the President, who are secretly hoping for that end game. And for naive individuals like CO, yeah — I really do hope I’m wrong.

canadianobserver11October 5, 2013 / 3:06 pm

Amazona
October 5, 2013 at 2:24 pm

“Spook, I notice that the simpering allegedly Canadian non-observer, has chosen to define “by force” as nothing else but armed rebellion”….
——————————————————————————————-
My mistake, Amazona. When I read neocon’s statement…….”we are doomed unless we take our government back by force. Why do you think they are hell bound to disarm us while arming the muslim bro hood to the teeth world wide.”…….. I, erroneously it seems, concluded that he meant that the patriots would forcefully take over the governing powers by violent means (firearms) before the government had a chance of stripping them of their 2nd. amendment rights.

I should have known better. Neocon is a man of peace and would never advocate violence against the government no matter how much he despised the elected rulers.

AmazonaOctober 5, 2013 / 7:06 pm

Wow–twice in two days you have come around to a sane perspective. First you admitted that you wondered how we could tolerate an unconstitutional law, and now you admit you were wrong in leaping to the assumption that a reasonable man of peace like neo would be advocating violence. You are proof that even the most obdurate of radical Lefties can be led to the light. Congratulations, and I hope these are just the first of many revelations of the error of your Leftist ways.

I guarantee you if the situation were reversed, and it was Republicans who were instigating this kind of crap, you would have violent reactions from leftist radicals. The fact that conservatives haven’t responded with violence is testimony to the basic civility of the conservative movement and conservatives in general.

neocon01October 5, 2013 / 9:55 am

db
five idiologues say it is constitutional, the people say it is not….I say the states and people should withhold all income tax…we would crush this rotten apple in 2 weeks.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 11:34 pm

” Somewhere along the line you never developed the ability to understand different points of view without having to assign negative characteristics such as having “lost the ability to empathize with your fellow human beings” and I find that to be a very sad thing indeed.

Actually, that is not correct. I do not find it sad, just annoying. But typical of a certain mindset.

No, you are deeply in error when you assume that I do not “empathize with my fellow human beings”. I just find empathy with their plights to be one thing and an objective approach to solving their problems without subverting our Constitution another.

Facile and superficial claims to being more empathetic to the problems of others are not the shortcut to the Higher Moral Ground you seem to think they are. On the contrary, they are a way to lay claim to that territory without having to actually DO anything other than feel. So your kind will feel feel feel, and then decide that the property of other people is what is needed to solve whatever problem you are emoting over.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 8:18 pm

You see, the thing is, Amazona and I and the rest of the rational people here disagree at times. In fact, we disagree very much. We’re individuals who think things through on our own and come to our own conclusions. And here’s the real kicker – none of us hate each other for disagreeing. In fact, its fun to disagree and to argue when both sides have a strong point to make and are willing to make it with respect for the other. This is different from your side which is a bunch of mind-numbed lemmings who believe whatever the DNC talking points of the day are…and who get hate-filled and nasty when any of us, from any perspective, disagree with the talking points.

AmazonaOctober 3, 2013 / 11:18 am

So now the allegedly Canadian non-observer is claiming to speak for “..the rest of the world..” After the mandatory Lefty bleating about how stripping people of the freedom of choice regarding their health care and forcing them to submit to a massive, bloated, power-mad Central Authority (which has, in the best traditions of the Left, spared the Ruling Elite the burdens of the laws imposed on the proles) is just so much better than letting them have the freedom to choose their own doctors and health care plans because THEY are associated with (gasp!) THE EEEEVILS OF CAPITALISM !!!!! he parrots the ridiculous lies of his beloved Left that it is the Right which is refusing to compromise.

All those bills presented by the Republicans which are dismissed by arrogant Dems who repeat that they absolutely will not settle for anything but every single thing they want? Why, to the mindless lemmings of the Left, what this really means, once it is translated by their minders, is that the Right will not settle for less than every single thing they want. But….but….but…isn’t it the Republicans who keep offering alternative after alternative? “Pay no attention to what you see, just to what we tell you it means.” But…but….but….isn’t it Obama and Reid turning down every single offer and stating with absolute finality that they refuse to give an inch? “Oh, you silly children. this is why you need us to tell you what to think about things like this. What THIS means is that the Dems are the sweet voice of reason fighting for the common man and the survival of the government and the Right is trying to destroy it.” But….but….but…aren’t the Republicans trying to fund essential government and just trying to delay a program that is already proven to be a disaster and costing Americans billions they were told they would not have to pay? “Nonsense. They pretend to be trying to fund essential government when they put up bills that would do this, but you can’t pay any attention to what you see and hear, only to what we tell you it all really means. Only Reid and Obama have the Secret Decoder Rings that unravel the hidden meanings of what the Right is doing.”

I think the debacle of the 2012 elections has convinced the Left that Americans are much more stupid than we are. Oh, I can see how they might have come to the conclusion that we are utterly brainless and incapable of rational thought. We made that statement about ourselves pretty clear last November. But I would not count on all of the gullible remaining so oblivious to fact. The ugly reality of Obamarule is starting to sink into more and more American minds, and I think the Left might have a surprise ahead of them.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 11:28 am

Amazona,

I just did an update to the post noting a recent poll on the shutdown – I think its starting to swing our way. We keep this up for a week or ten days and the Democrats’ refusal to negotiate will look increasingly stupid while their hate-filled rhetoric will start to repel even LIV. If we fight them, we beat them because we’re right, they’re wrong (and, also, they are bunch of rank, nasty liars, in to the bargain).

Retired SpookOctober 3, 2013 / 11:54 am

and I think the Left might have a surprise ahead of them.

And I think some of them are starting to realize that, hence the unhinged rhetoric about Republicans being political arsonists and legislative jihadists. I think we’re getting near the point of no return if we haven’t already reached it.

M. NoonanOctober 2, 2013 / 1:06 pm

Yes, I would – and I could scream until I’m blue in the face and it won’t make the least bit of difference. If the Democrats control the House and refuse to fund things, then my only recourse is at the next election – to bring it to the American people and let them decide…not call them “terrorists” and “arsonists” because they don’t want to go along with what they promised their constituents they wouldn’t go along with.

UPDATE: And now that I think about it further, I am even more convinced of the stupidity of the argument “must do what you don’t wish”, because if Romney had won and it was Reid, controlling 1/2 of 1/3 of the government stopping things, then no Democrat or MSMer or RINO would be on the warpath about it…they’d all be carefully explaining that Reid is just doing his job. There are three words to describe how I feel about the arguments against the House GOP – but I won’t post the first or third, the second is “this” and you can figure it out on your own.

The birther nonsense is going to bite Ted Cruz. The ethics of sticking by the rules and funding laws and the entire claim to being pro constitution is becoming a foreign issue for the GOP.

Next, you want to give the Democrats even a smidgen of a claim to being fiscally responsible too (i.e. they could claim to be fiscally responsible by shutting down the government in the future)? Granted that would be a huge gamble with their constituency but they make them happy via CR.

M. NoonanOctober 2, 2013 / 1:51 pm

They already shut down the government plenty of times – stop following the MSM/DNC/RINO narrative that this has never happened before. And stop worrying about what the Democrats may to do us and start thinking about what we will do to them.

AmazonaOctober 2, 2013 / 9:22 pm

birtherbirtherbirther—the call of the loon. It was once applied to people who thought Obama was probably born in Kenya. Then it was slapped onto people who had no opinion but also realized that the “proofs” his surrogates gave were unconvincing. It slopped over onto people who pointed out that the COLB was designed specifically for people NOT born in Hawaii, so its dual nature required a second basis for its issuance to show if it proved in-state birth or out-of-state birth—not taking a side, just pointing out a fact. It then was applied to people who believe that the term Natural Born Citizen means born to parents, or to a father, who was a citizen at the time of the birth. As well as to those who were merely intrigued by the wealth of evidence supporting that claim. It now seems to be applied to anyone who believes that there should be any citizenship requirement at all, as well as to people who merely wonder what that requirement might be. And of course it is now used to damn people who think that an ambiguous requirement should be defined to head off disputes at a later date—how DARE they!!???

The idea of limiting the presidency to people who meet certain eligibility criteria was important to the Founders. They discussed this, they explained it, and they legislated it. Now those who lack the intellect to study the issue objectively, or commitment to the rule of law have decided that if something is complicated, or demanding, or inconvenient, it should just be ignored.

OF COURSE if a ruling were to be made defining the eligibility criteria in a way that eliminated Ted Cruz from the presidency, it would “bite” him. But there are still some people who put objective allegiance to the rule of law ahead of expediency, wishful thinking, or political gain. I happen to think that Ted Cruz is one of them. Nothing I have seen about the man has indicated to me that he would jettison principles just to be president. That kind of character is why disqualifying him from the presidency would sadden me. But I would accept it.

AmazonaOctober 2, 2013 / 9:28 pm

Yeah, ’cause who cares if those laws “passed through all three branches of government” comply with the Constitution? After all, it would be a “consensus”, right?

Ditz: “to enact a law duly created by Congress, duly signed by the President and adjudicated to be constitutional by the Supreme Court, as the Constitution proscribe.”

Duly created by Congress – where Democrats used procedural measures outside of normal rules for passing legislation (Reconciliation) to push it through the Senate. Political bribes and appointments to get it through the House. Not to mention disregarding Senate rules where bills once out of cloture could not be amended – the Reid two step.

Adjudicated by the Supreme Court – where it would have went down in defeat if Justice Roberts had not rewrote the law to make the PENALTY (as it was presented by the pResident as NOT A TAX!) indeed a tax.

There is, however, a Constitutional requirement that the President “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” So, tell me again who’s in violation of the Constitution.

dbschmidtOctober 1, 2013 / 7:22 pm

“Honest” Harry Reid–yeah, right.
Ex-Nevada power broker Harvey Whittemore admitted he was “arrogant and naive” but insisted “I’m not greedy” before a judge sentenced him Monday to two years in prison for funneling more than $130,000 in illegal campaign funds to Sen. Harry Reid’s re-election committee in 2007.

Sorry sDitz, but the only ones who are pouting (and lying) right now is obAMATEUR and Reid. They are unwilling to do anything but have their way – no compromise, no meetings, no nothing! The government could have been funded and spending for obAMACARE could have been restored in the coming weeks. Instead, they want all or nothing – just like every other CR and raising the debt ceiling votes made since this man became pResident and cannot get a budget passed the Democrat controlled Senate (all his bills were UNANIMOUSLY defeated).

The people have spoken. A majority of the people do not want obAMACARE, but does the pResident and Reid listen? Nope. Instead, obAMATEUR trumpets that the people don’t know what they are talking about.

You know what would be amazing, if obAMATEUR proposed a budget where ONE SINGLE SENATOR would vote for it! Then, there would be no need for CR after CR. Or if Reid, would use the legislative process to get bills through the Senate! He did it both times for obAMACARE. He used Reconciliation to get it through the Senate the first time by declaring obAMACARE something that it is not. And then circumventing the Senate rules where after cloture amendments were not allowed on the bill. This is when he put the amendment on it to restore funding for obAMACARE (unlike any other bill passed in the Senate).

It is time for you and your proggy buddy drones to stop living in a fantasy world, to stop sucking down the obAMATEUR kool-aid and join the real world. Your pResident is FAR from being a leader and this latest fight is another example of his lack of leadership and a worthless failure.

Please, E. Ditz show us where in the Constitution that gives Congress the authority to FORCE us to engage in commerce (ie health insurance or any other commodity, service or product) ….

You can’t because it is not in there. Don’t bring up the states force us to buy car insurance talking point. Look at the operative word there – STATE.

People identified as mindless trolls and blog vandals will be deleted. Please do not respond to them as this keeps their footprints and smell on the blog. If they ever said anything worthy of a response they would be allowed to stay. // Moderator

Agreed. No deal until the rank hypocrisy of Obama’s twenty some odd exemptions and waivers is matched by a delay in the individual mandate.

dbschmidtOctober 2, 2013 / 4:21 pm

Kind of off topic / thread but being in the IT world all I can say about healthcare.gov is incompetence of monumental scale. With three years to prepare, friends like Google and basically unlimited funding / equipment (NSA servers come to mind) and it is nothing less than a total clusterf@$k. Private sector would have been fired a couple of months ago during QA testing–government, I expect a promotion w/ a big fat bonus.

Great line by Rush today: half of the people were rushing to sign up for ObamaCare because they thought it was free; the other half because they thought they’d go to jail if they didn’t. By about this time next year there’s gonna be a lot of disappointed, disillusioned Americans. The only ones that’ll make out are illegals and politicians, and they probably will get it for free.

M. NoonanOctober 3, 2013 / 12:44 am

That was my thinking, too – probably a lot of people signed thinking it was time for more free goodies. Heck, even the ObamaCare website didn’t drop “Free” until a couple days before it went in to effect.

What is this government shutdown showing us other than their are a great deal of unessential federal employees?

The Democrats have decided to take their ball and go home and pout about evil Conservatives who were elected to hold their ground on this, among other, issues. Let us look at their arguments. It is the law, and it has been ratified by the SCOTUS and an election. Well, starting with the easiest which is the election–he won, just as the Republican House did, while an estimated 9 million conservatives sat it out. We got what what we deserved but it does not mean we have to surrender. Buyer’s remorse is what I encounter every day. Next would be the Constitutionality of the law which has yet to be tested. Okay, it is a tax that was sold as not a tax but the law itself has not been tested because no one can bring a case until they have been directly effected by a law. Expect this to change in a dramatic way come Jan 1, 2014. I will be one among millions filing suits against ObamaCare. Amazona covered the rest quite well. Finally, it is the law–okay, except it has been changed or altered at least 19 times (which in itself is illegal) since it was rammed down the throats of the American people. Please review how it “passed” if you have any questions. Want a clean CR (because every Obama budget has failed 100-0) — then try to pass it on the original law and not the modified version. Not ready for prime time is a misnomer because this is a complete failure in theory as well as execution.

The only part of this disaster I would keep is the exchanges if not run by the government, nor the insurance industry. Allow people to search all available policies across State lines and purchase (or not) what they feel would suit them best. Just look at Lasic as an example; however, for our resident trolls–where would you go for required care when your home countries cannot provide it in a responsible time-frame or cost? Look no further than your PM, or other high fluting officials coming to America for care–what happens when America is as mediocre as the rest of the world? No R&D or advancements because it is not worth it (evil capitalism(? I am sure in your Utopian dreamworld–everyone works for the betterment of all mankind with no thought of monetary gain. I am sure they are making sure they have clean passage to Cuba for excellent care.

Even though I am not surprised that college students today have no idea who Vladimir Putin is, or the ACA and ObamaCare are one in the same, it a a strong signal that America must head back towards a strong education (Liberal but not in the sense you think) foundation rather than worry about issues. Teach them how to think–not what to think. The “low-information” voter almost makes me want to return to a test before being allowed to vote. Nevertheless, let us look at Obama’s wonderful ACA. Well, it is not affordable because my rates for a simple plan would almost triple here in NC. Once you add the premiums and deductibles from a company I liked (2 surgeries) I am regulated towards two companies I would not have considered for even less coverage at well over twice the amount. Less coverage–over twice the amount and this is only the insurance–not even sure if any of my current doctors would accept it. BTW, concierge service (pay cash) will also become illegal under this plan.

Next, let us take a real look at this government shutdown–even though the Republicans are trying to fund government while facing a wall of opposition. As the light is shown on this government shutdown, I see the Democrats and RINOs starting to scurry like the little cockroaches they are.

This is just a sampling of the Obama administrations plan of inflicting unnecessary pain on the American population in order to try and explain itself. Just like the shiudown of White House tours during the sequester that fails so well.

US Military
As I hear every evening on the shill MSM media including local news that civilian workers at military installations are being furloughed–this is at the direction of one of Obama’s minions ~ probably Sec. of Defense Hagel. The LAW (as you Liberals love to squeal about) from the house–passed by the Senate and signed by President Obama not only funds the military but ALL civilian personnel. They are furloughed at the direction of the DoD / Pentagon and NOT because of the government shutdown.

WWII Memorial
Open air 24/7/365 memorial had barriers erected and more guards appointed than defended Benghazi appointed to shut down a memorial that has never been closed before.

City Tavern, Philadelphia
City Tavern at 3rd and Walnut Streets in the Old City section of the city has been told it must close until the U.S. Congress passes a spending bill. Hope they will not try that with Tun’s Tavern.

Beaches of Normandy
Tourists traveling to Omaha Beach to pay their respects to the 9,387 military dead at the Normandy American Cemetery and Memorial will find it closed, a victim of the U.S. government’s partial shutdown. The site overlooking the D-Day invasion beaches is one of 24 U.S. military cemeteries overseas that have closed to visitors since Monday. Ten more cemeteries in France, as well as others in various European countries as well as Mexico, Panama, Tunisia and the Philippines, will remain closed for the duration of the shutdown.

how about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was a court case that was about running an anti-hilary ad 60 days before an election. Somehow it allowed unlimited money to be distributed by corporations to lawmakers. It had nothing to do with the case. THere are many instances of supreme court doing this. I am at work so i dont have time to list all of them. However, the supreme court said as long as it is a tax it is constituional which essentially made ACA constitutional if you like it or not. It is constitutional. I am not saying it is a great law but it is constitutional as long as it is counted as a tax

Retired SpookOctober 4, 2013 / 11:29 am

how about Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. It was a court case that was about running an anti-hilary ad 60 days before an election. Somehow it allowed unlimited money to be distributed by corporations to lawmakers. It had nothing to do with the case.

please find me an article that i can read from a newspaper(not newsbusters) that says that ACA was not ruled constitutional. You are stating opinions which have no facts. Please inform us with someone who actually wrote about ACA.

Retired SpookOctober 4, 2013 / 10:39 am

Lots of venues have written about the Supreme Courts decision on ObamaCare.

IIRC, a lower court had ruled that the individual mandate was not severable from the rest of the bill, so, ruling that the individual mandate as a tax was within the purview of Congress’ taxing ability, the court said the law could move forward. I think if you read both the majority and minority opinions you see that the court said nothing about the constitutionality of the overall bill. If it were ruled constitutional, there wouldn’t still be numerous challenges winding their way through the courts.

Retired SpookOctober 4, 2013 / 10:56 am

Another interesting look at negative ramifications of ObamaCare. I hadn’t thought about the impact on marriage.

As well as effects on hiring, the subsidies in the Affordable Care Act, could increase the incentive to divorce and discourage marriage.

Under the Act, if workers have affordable single-family coverage from an employer — coverage that by law workers are obligated to accept — their family members will not be eligible for premium subsidies on the exchanges. This can make the cost of insurance for some low- or middle-income families unaffordable. But if they divorce, they get the subsidy.

Without subsidies, low-income families will not be able to afford to buy insurance on the state exchanges. The Internal Revenue Service estimates that family plans will cost $20,000 (in after-tax dollars) a year by 2016. Anyone under 400% of the poverty line, currently $94,000 for a family of four, qualifies for a subsidy — unless a family member has employer-provided insurance.

Retired SpookOctober 5, 2013 / 9:05 am

The quote from Mark Stein in Update IV nails it. It appears that repugnant dirtbag, Harry Reid, has adopted the old “two rule” strategy. Rule #1: we will not compromise. Rule #2: if you want to compromise, see rule #1. I called my congressman and both senators and asked them to keep trying to compromise. I told them I would be willing to forego my social security and navy pension for as long as it takes to resolve this in a bi-partisan manner. My Republican congressman and and senator’s staffers said they were committed to compromise. My Democrat Senator’s staffer told me he was not, and that compromise in this matter was irresponsible.

dbschmidtOctober 5, 2013 / 11:10 am

If this country followed the Constitutional model, with the exception of defense including borders, the majority of our taxes would go to the States who would fund the Federal government and not this crap where the Feds hold the States hostage. IMHO, Federal government should be a part time occupation.

Laws passed by all “three branches of government” include such gems as Plessey v. Fergusson and Dred Scott. Thank G-d those generations didn’t have the attitude that Laws are Prescribed on High with infallibility.

More evidence that the shutdown is for pure political purposes and engineered by obAMATEUR and his fellow looters in the Democrat party. Memorials and parks that are being closed are the only ones that get the most exposure to the public and give the possibility of the most ammunition for political pressure…. at least that is their thinking.

During the ’95/’96 shutdown, the National Parks and Memorials were not closed. Not to mention PRIVATE museums, such as Mount Vernon, are forced to close by this crooked administration. The sad fact is that non-thinking drones like cappy and those on the dark side mindlessly regurgitate the talking points despite the facts of the situation (talk about low information voters they don’t want to see the facts!). All attempts at compromise from fully funding obamacare with the delay for the private sector (where unions and businesses received the delay) to fully funding obamacare with Congress and the pResident forced onto the same plan they forced on us, have been rejected by the weasel Reid and the non-leader we have for a pResident.

Great comments in this thread. Some very funny. I have to say though that his people still think he’s a god. I’m working with a builder to learn some subcontractor skills. So, I get to work with about every trade it takes to build a house. I constantly have to listen to LIVs talk about these event from the standpoint of what Republicans are trying to keep or take from them. Lunch break yesterday, I had to listen to the crew go on about how the Speaker of the House (yes, I was surprised they knew what that was) is still getting paid while “he’s” turning old vets away from memorials.

There is no amount of proof you can show them that will make them blame Obama.

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Speaker John Boehner (BAY-nur) says he doesn’t know when the government shutdown will end and says it’s up to President Barack Obama to start negotiations.

The Ohio Republican said Sunday that he will not allow his GOP-led House to vote on a bill reopening the government without serious talks about spending. He also says he will not go forward with a bill increasing the government’s borrowing authority without a similar conversation.

Comments are closed.

Email Subscription

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.